David Harvey said:
> Dear Juan,
>
> If you have ideas about how to help improve MathML, apart from
> dumping it altogether, then that's great, we want to hear about it,
Dear David,
In this list and in other parts, improvement to MathML (and tools) was
discussed enough. Some simple changes such as a more powerfull script
model could be easily addressed in future MathML 3, however, other
problems are of a fundamental nature and also as addressed here, the
MathML WG want not do backward incompatible changes on the system.
Therefore, there is not problem to look at alternatives, is there?
> and I'm sure the MathML 3.0 committee want your input.
Maybe, but only when fit in I call their head model.
> But if all you
> plan to do is bash MathML over the head and tell us all how hopeless
> and irredeemable it is,
Do not forget that this list is for math on the web (not exclusively for
MathML). CSS approach is an alternative may be promoted and I am doing
just that.
> which is pretty much what you have been doing
> on this list for several months, then I and many others would
> appreciate it if you would take your grievances somewhere else.
I cannot understand the ethics of this.
If MathML authors can devote time to review the flaws of other approaches
as GIF, tables, LaTeX plugins, 12083, etc. also we can review flaws of
MathML, No?
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL SCIENCE)